Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I am all for fairness. You are not. You cannot allow such lopsided power to influence politicians and elections and expect that at the end of the day they will represent the Individuals not corporations that got them there. As one of my heroins, Molly Ivins, was fond of saying; "you gotta dance with the one that brought you!"

Do you feel that, in the face of advertising campaigns and media bombardment, people are incapable of making a sound decision on who to vote for?

Do you feel that, in the face of advertising campaigns and media bombardment, people are incapable of making a sound decision on who to vote for?

Do you believe that advertising works?

Citizens have challenged corporate power in the past and I think they will do so again. Prior to the 17th amendment, corporations were basically buying senators

I think there may be a popular movement to urge for a constitutional amendment to clarify the status of corporate personhood.

There is also a strong logical argument for legislation that says that if a corp. does business with federal government it cannot spend money to influence elections. So that would include industries w defense contractors, big Pharma, the insurance industry, and many others who have contracts or subsidies.

I am not the only one. You better take that up with Newt Gingrich who has opined that this is a great victory for non-incumbents -the individuals who can muster support from those that have money- corporations. Of course, they always toss in unions as though unions had parity with corporations in the ability to spend $$$ to influence elections.

Well that is a revealing comment. I guess you are the one happy to have some voices stifled.

Is English not your first language? You said only corporate money can get people on the ballot, which is bull**** because most people can afford the filing fees. Even dip****s like Ralph Nader, and more power to him if he wants to be on a ballot and raise as much money from as many idiots as he can. He can make all the speeches he wants and buy all the commercials he can afford. But not with my money and I hope with nobody else's.

Now, before you choose to post again, please learn to ****ing read the English language. Thanks.

Citizens have challenged corporate power in the past and I think they will do so again. Prior to the 17th amendment, corporations were basically buying senators.

I believe that advertising sometimes has the opposite effect. And furthermore, without the force of government, corporate power is nothing. Corporations would not even exist without manipulation of the market through exhaustive policies and regulations.

Originally Posted by Cassandra

I think there may be a popular movement to urge for a constitutional amendment to clarify the status of corporate personhood..

that's a can o' worms that also happens to be a degredation of freedom of the press. Most, I think, would oppose ceding such power to Washington.

Originally Posted by Cassandra

There is also a strong logical argument for legislation that says that if a corp. does business with federal government it cannot spend money to influence elections. So that would include industries w defense contractors, big Pharma, the insurance industry, and many others who have contracts or subsidies.

Why not just cut to the chase and remove the incentive for such entities to bother rent-seeking in the first place? Why not simply push for a limitation to the power of the government to manipulate markets? As long as legislators have this ability, entities will seek to buy off legislators to affect policy either in their favor or to stifle competitors. Any law restricting corporations is going to be riddled with loopholes... why would you trust the very people who are so easily bought off by corporations to effect any serious limitation in the process? They will only pass law that serves to pick and choose among various outlets of information--those that suit their own re-elections.

that's a can o' worms that also happens to be a degredation of freedom of the press. Most, I think, would oppose ceding such power to Washington.

Sorry, I fail to see how defining the rights delineated in the constitution as meant for people not corporations cedes power to Washington. I would say that it helps to cede power to citizens.

Why not just cut to the chase and remove the incentive for such entities to bother rent-seeking in the first place? Why not simply push for a limitation to the power of the government to manipulate markets? As long as legislators have this ability, entities will seek to buy off legislators to affect policy either in their favor or to stifle competitors. Any law restricting corporations is going to be riddled with loopholes... why would you trust the very people who are so easily bought off by corporations to effect any serious limitation in the process? They will only pass law that serves to pick and choose among various outlets of information--those that suit their own re-elections.

Hmm, I think that many of our elected officials are extremely unhappy with a situation that forces them to spend two days out of every work week raising money rather than doing the people's business. Judging from the Abramoff scandal there are certainly people whose minds are twisted by the flow of money. NOt all, though.

But in general, meaningful changes have to come from the bottom up. There is every reason why libertarians and progressives should make common cause to work toward financial/electoral changes that would break the back of the two party system.